The Justice Department announced criminal charges against an Indian government employee Thursday in connection with a foiled plot to kill a Sikh separatist leader living in New York City.

Vikash Yadav remains at large but faces murder-for-hire charges in federal court.

The criminal case was announced the same week as two members of an Indian inquiry committee investigating the plot were in Washington to meet with U.S. officials about the investigation. Also this week, Canada said it had identified India’s top diplomat in the country as a person of interest in the assassination of a Sikh activist there and expelled him and five other diplomats Monday.

“The Justice Department will be relentless in holding accountable any person — regardless of their position or proximity to power — who seeks to harm and silence American citizens,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement announcing the charges.

The murder-for-hire plot was first disclosed by federal prosecutors last year when they announced charges against a man, Nikhil Gupta, who was recruited by a then-unidentified Indian government employee to orchestrate the assassination of a Sikh separatist leader in New York.

Gupta was extradited to the United States in June from the Czech Republic after his arrest in Prague last year.

In a statement, the intended victim, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, said the indictment means the U.S. government has “reassured its commitment to fundamental constitutional duty to protect the life, liberty and freedom of expression of the U.S. Citizen at home and abroad.”

He added, “The attempt on my life on American Soil is the blatant case of India’s transnational terrorism which has become a challenge to America’s sovereignty and threat to freedom of speech and democracy, which unequivocally proves that India believes in using bullets while pro Khalistan Sikhs believe in ballots.”

The United Nations overwhelmingly passed a resolution on Wednesday demanding that Israel urgently end its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, a vote that comes just weeks before Israel’s military offensive that has caused a devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza reaches one year.

Out of the U.N. General Assembly’s 193 member states, 124 of them voted in favor of the resolution presented by the Palestinian mission to the world body. Fourteen states voted against the resolution ― including Israel’s closest ally and primary weapons supplier, the United States ― while 43 states abstained. There are no vetoes in the General Assembly, unlike the 15-member Security Council.

“Please stand on the right side of history, with international law, with freedom, with peace,” Palestinian ambassador Riyad Mansour, who introduced the resolution, told the body on Tuesday. “The alternative is what you witness every day on your TV screens. And what the Palestinian people are enduring in their flesh. A different reality is possible. It starts now, and here. Free Palestine.”

The nonbinding resolution demands that Israel “brings an end without delay its unlawful presence” of occupied Palestinian territories like Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Israeli government must end its illegal occupation by withdrawing all of its forces and evacuating its settlers from Palestinian land within the next 12 months, according to the draft.

In addition, the resolution calls for Israel to pay reparations to Palestinians for damage accrued by its occupation, and urges member states to impose sanctions on those responsible for maintaining Israel’s presence in the territories, and halt weapons transfers to Israel.

“This is a shameful decision that backs the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic terrorism,” Israel’s U.N. Ambassador, Danny Danon, said following the vote ― accusing the General Assembly and the Palestinian Authority of being sympathetic to Hamas, whose militants killed about 1,200 people and captured hundreds in Israel nearly one year ago.

Since then, the Israeli military has killed more than 41,000 people in Gaza and rendered the territory virtually unlivable. Aid groups say the collapse of necessary food and medical infrastructure has caused a humanitarian catastrophe, while multiple U.N. member states and human rights experts have described Israel’s ongoing violence as genocidal.

The resolution was drawn from a July advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice that said Israel’s decades-long presence in the Palestinian territories is illegal and must urgently come to a halt. According to the court, Israel violated international law by capturing Palestinian land by force during the 1967 war, giving it no right to sovereignty over the territories.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that she voted against the “one-sided” resolution because it did not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization and “will not bring about tangible progress for Palestinians.” The U.S. has unconditionally supplied Israel with weapons and has condemned efforts by the international community to hold the Israeli government accountable.

Palestine is considered a “Permanent Observer State” after the U.N. rejected its request to become a member state in 2011. Having Permanent Observer status allows Palestine to still participate in U.N. proceedings ― except for voting on draft resolutions and decisions in bodies like the Security Council, General Assembly and the six main committees.

In April, Palestine renewed its request to become a member state by sending a letter to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who forwarded it to the Security Council. The following month, the General Assembly passed a resolution that upgrades Palestine’s observer rights at the body, allowing the state to submit and introduce proposals, make statements on behalf of a group, fully participate in U.N. conferences, and elect delegates of the State of Palestine as officers in the plenary and the main committees of the General Assembly.

Mansour said that peace in the region can only be possible if there is a just, two-state solution to the long-debated Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the 1967 borders. And that such a solution cannot be reached if states believe “this is not the right time for such action,” he said.

“I stand on this podium, at this historic and tragic juncture, to tell the Palestinian people that a change is going to come, that their fate is not endless suffering and agony, that freedom is their birthright and their destiny,” Mansour told the General Assembly. “We are not a people too many. We are not a problem. We are a nation that asks for nothing more than your nations, but can accept nothing less.”

Israel launched a rare airstrike that killed a senior Hezbollah military official in a densely populated southern Beirut neighborhood on Friday. It was the deadliest such strike on Lebanon’s capital in decades, with Lebanese authorities reporting at least 14 people killed and dozens more wounded in the attack.

The Israeli military’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said the strike on Beirut’s southern Dahiya district killed Ibrahim Akil, a commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force, as well as 10 other Hezbollah operatives.

“We will continue pursuing our enemies in order to defend our citizens, even in Dahiya, in Beirut,” said Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, describing the Israeli strike that targeted Akil as part of “a new phase of war.”

Several hours later, Hezbollah confirmed Akil’s death. In a statement, the Lebanese militant group described Akil as “a great jihadist leader” and said he had “joined the procession of his brothers, the great martyr leaders, after a blessed life full of jihad, work, wounds, sacrifices, dangers, challenges, achievements, and victories.”

Akil served on Hezbollah’s highest military body, the Jihad Council. He was sanctioned by the United States for his alleged involvement in the 1983 bombing that killed more than 300 people at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the U.S. Marine Corps barracks.

Last year, the U.S. State Department posted a $7 million reward for information leading to his identification, location, arrest or conviction, citing his role in the embassy bombing and in the taking of American and German hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s.

The strike came as a new cycle of escalation between the enemies raised fears of a full-out war erupting in the Middle East.

Hours before the Israeli strike, Hezbollah pounded northern Israel with 140 rockets as the region awaited the revenge promised by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah over this week’s mass explosions of pagers belonging to members of the Shiite militant group.

The Israeli military did not provide the identities of the other Hezbollah commanders allegedly killed in its strike on the crowded neighborhood just kilometers from downtown Beirut.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said at least 14 people were killed and 66 others were wounded in the attack, which leveled the apartment building where the Israeli army claimed Akil had been meeting with other militants in the basement. Nine of the wounded were in serious condition, the ministry added.

Local networks in Lebanon broadcast footage showing first responders sifting through the rubble of a collapsed high-rise in the Jamous area in the heart of Dahiya, where Hezbollah conducts many of its political and security operations.

Friday’s airstrike — the deadliest such attack on a neighborhood of Beirut since Israel and Hezbollah fought a bloody, monthlong war in 2006 — hit during rush hour, as people were leaving work and children heading home from school.

At Beirut’s St. Therese Hospital near the scene of the airstrike, crowds flocked to donate blood for those wounded in the attack.

“We are all together in this situation, so it’s my obligation,” said Hussein Harake, who lined up to donate blood.

From Israel, Gallant said he briefed senior military officials on the strike and vowed Israel would press on against Hezbollah “until we achieve our goal, ensuring the safe return of Israel’s northern communities to their homes.”

The strike came after Hezbollah launched one of its most intense bombardments of northern Israel in nearly a year of fighting, largely targeting Israeli military sites. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted most of the Katyusha rockets. The few that got through sparked small fires but caused little damage and no Israeli casualties.

Hezbollah described its latest wave of rocket salvos as a response to past Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon — not as revenge for the mass explosions of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies on Tuesday and Wednesday that killed at least 37 people – including two children – and wounded 2,900 others in attacks widely attributed to Israel.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in this week’s sophisticated attacks, which signaled a major escalation in the past 11 months of simmering conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Israel and Hezbollah have traded fire regularly since Hamas’ Oct. 7 assault on southern Israel ignited the Israeli military’s devastating offensive in Gaza. But previous cross-border attacks have largely struck areas in northern Israel that had been evacuated and less-populated parts of southern Lebanon.

The last time Israel hit Beirut was in a July airstrike that killed senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukur.

“The attack in Lebanon is to protect Israel,” Hagari said at a news conference following Friday’s strike, describing both Shukr and Akil as the two military officials closest to Hezbollah leader Nasrallah.

Hagari also accused Akil of plotting a series of attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians dating back decades, including a never-realized plan to invade northern Israel in a similar way to the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks.

After Friday’s Israeli airstrike, Hezbollah announced attacks on northern Israel, two of which it said targeted an intelligence base from where it claimed Israel directed assassinations.

Israel remains on edge, with Nasrallah vowing Thursday to keep up strikes on Israel despite the humiliating “blow” he said Hezbollah suffered in the sabotage of its communication devices.

“We are in a tense period,” Hagari told reporters Friday. “We are prepared on high alert both offensively and defensively.”

In recent days, Israel has sent a powerful fighting force to the northern border, designated as an official war goal the return of tens of thousands of displaced residents to their homes in northern Israel and ordered citizens near Israel’s border with Lebanon to stay close to bomb shelters. Hezbollah has maintained that it will only halt its fire when there is a cease-fire in Gaza.

Hamas, which continues to fight Israel in Gaza, condemned the Israeli strike targeting Akil as a “new crime” and “violation of Lebanese sovereignty.”

Even as the world’s attention turns to the surge in Israel-Hezbollah tensions, Palestinian casualties in the besieged Gaza Strip continued to mount.

Palestinian health authorities early Friday reported that 15 people, including children, were killed in Israeli strikes that targeted a family home and a group of people on the street in Gaza City. Israel’s campaign in Gaza has already killed at least 41,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza-based Health Ministry, which doesn’t differentiate between fighters and civilians.

In response to a request for comment on the latest Gaza strikes, the Israeli military insisted on Friday that it took “feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm” and accused Hamas of endangering civilians by operating in residential areas.

Israel’s bombardment and invasion of the Gaza Strip — launched in response to Hamas killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostage in southern Israel on Oct. 7 — has wreaked vast destruction and displaced about 90% of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million.

Since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, Russia has enjoyed watching the deteriorating situation in the Middle East preoccupy its main adversary, the United States. On April 13, however, Moscow grew concerned when, in retaliation for an attack on the Damascus consulate of Iran, its growing ally, Tehran launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel. Although that attack was effectively neutralized by antimissile defenses and coordinated support from the United States and Arab and Western partners, Israel responded six days later with a strike on an S-300 long-range air defense system in Isfahan, a city deep within Iran.

On July 21, following weeks of intense speculation, U.S. President Joe Biden announced that he would not run in the November 2024 presidential election and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. Coming at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, the decision could have large implications for U.S. foreign policy for the remainder of Biden’s term.

To make sense of what Biden’s decision means for the presidency and U.S. world leadership in the weeks to come, Foreign Affairs’ senior editor Hugh Eakin spoke to the presidential historian Timothy Naftali, a faculty scholar at the Institute of Global Politics at Columbia University, the founding director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, the author of George H. W. Bush (a volume in the Times Books “American Presidents” series), and the editor of The Presidential Recordings: Lyndon B. Johnson.  

The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

In his momentous announcement, Biden said that it’s in the best interest of his party in the country for him to focus solely on “fulfilling [his] duties as president for the remainder of [his] term.” I wonder how easy that will be. Will the world, including not only antagonists but also partners and allies, see him as a lame duck?

I actually think that President Biden’s very difficult decision today has restored some of the luster to the American commitment to Ukraine and to stabilizing other parts of the world.

Leaders see power as always in flux. And in the three weeks since the debate, the Biden administration likely found the world more skeptical about U.S. power, in the sense that it seemed more and more likely that former President Donald Trump would beat Joe Biden in the election this fall. And as a result, countries were already gaming what kind of international political environment they would be contending with starting at the end of January, with Biden no longer in the White House.

But there is now a better chance that a Democrat will win in November. And so I’d argue that, for the moment at least, foreign leaders have to take seriously the possibility that a member of Biden’s team or someone else from the Democratic Party will be leading the United States, meaning that they may be able to count on support for Ukraine, for example. Some of that luster may disappear after the beginning of November. But the fact that the Democrats are no longer likely losers, I think will influence the way foreign leaders, particularly American adversaries view the Biden administration.

So to the extent that a likely Trump victory was already baked into the international calculus about the United States, Biden’s announcement forces a very different assessment.

And something else needs to be underscored here. Not since the early 1950s, when the internationalist General Dwight Eisenhower won the contest for the soul of the Republican Party over the isolationist Senator Robert Taft, have the two parties presented such fundamentally different worldviews with regard to America’s place in international affairs. Since 1952, both parties have been internationalist in their outlook. President Trump in his first term was an exception, but the Republican Party that he led was divided on this issue. 

As the recent Republican convention demonstrated, Trump has now refashioned the party completely in his own image. His choice of Senator J. D. Vance as his running mate, for example, didn’t represent an attempt to bridge different points of view, but a doubling down of Trumpism. And so were he to return to power—were he to regain the White House, and Republicans to hold the House and regain the Senate—foreign leaders, friends and foes alike, could anticipate a much more isolationist America. So the fact that now the internationalist party has an improved chance to win, will necessarily alter the calculations of foreign leaders. [Russian President] Vladimir Putin can no longer be certain that he can outlast the American commitment to European stability and to the sovereignty of Ukraine.

On the matter of antagonists, however, the United States is closely involved in two major wars, in Europe and the Middle East, and dealing with complicated issues in Asia and elsewhere. Does this announcement come at a perilous moment?

Oh, yes. It’s a perilous moment when the national strategy of a great power is so in question that an election could alter the country’s, or at least its leadership class’s, definition of the national interest. And it’s especially perilous for the international system when the country in question is a superpower. This situation introduces an uncertainty into the political calculations of every leader. It is very rare for an election to decide how the power elite of a nation defines its national interest. And it’s almost unheard of that this should happen for a great power.

During the Cold War, the two parties in the United States disagreed on the means by which to fight the Cold War, particularly in the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era. But they didn’t disagree on the fact that the United States faced a determined adversary and that national security entailed playing a role in defending, protecting, and encouraging regional and international stability. That consensus doesn’t exist anymore across the two parties.

Comparisons are naturally being made with President Lyndon Johnson’s March 1968 announcement that he would not run again. And many have noted that Biden’s decision is coming much later, in late July. But from a foreign policy point of view, it seems that actually, it’s early: we still have six months of the presidency left. What are the real possibilities in terms of what Biden can do during this time?

President Biden can ensure the continuation of the systems that are below the surface that are helping American allies around the world. If Trump is elected, we don’t know what will happen to intelligence cooperation, for example, not only with Ukraine but also with NATO allies and allies in East Asia. We don’t know what will happen to the training that our military is doing to assist allies of freedom around the world. 

All these processes, though they don’t get a lot of attention, matter for the stability of the world. And they don’t usually need special acts of Congress to be sustained; they just need a stable center in the Oval Office, and [under Biden] that’s been guaranteed. Adversaries are very sensitive to the continuation of those activities. It’s these day-to-day activities of the United States that are often the most alarming to them and most reassuring to our allies. International problems are rarely easy to solve, but they can be managed, and it’s that gardening, if you will, that American foreign national security policy makers need to do every day to be effective. 

And so the gardening can continue.

With the president in office focused on American internationalism, that’s a good thing for American allies. It gives them some predictive capacity about what they can expect from the United States between now and the 20th of January. And it’s a terrible thing for American adversaries, who know they are going to have to put up with a lot of American activities in support of aims that they don’t share.

What about the larger Biden record? Inevitably, one thinks of what happened at the end of the Obama administration and Trump coming to office setting out to undo so many of the major Obama policy initiatives. Are there specific ways that Biden can Trump-proof some of his own accomplishments?

By stepping aside, Biden is doing the most important thing that he can do at this point to Trump-proof the United States, in terms of our national security. As the Supreme Court just reminded us, the U.S. president has enormous authority to direct our foreign policy. And so the choice of the next president is so important. Even if Trump were to beat the ultimate Democratic nominee, Biden’s accomplishments in foreign policy might not all completely dissolve. Were Trump not to score a trifecta, and retain the House as well as win the Senate, one might see some pushback from Congress if a future President Trump and Vice President [J. D.] Vance were to try to dramatically rescind American activities abroad and sacrifice Ukraine to the wolf in the Kremlin. 

So how to Trump-proof our international stature will depend on which party the American people choose to lead the two houses of Congress. If Democrats control the House, they would complicate Trump’s efforts, for example, to shut down support for Ukraine. Trump could still veto a bill, but there may be the votes to overturn that veto. There will still be Republican senators and Republican members of the House who will want to vote for aid for Ukraine. So, if the Democrats control the House, Congress might be able to pass assistance packages for Ukraine and Israel, despite Trump’s being in the White House.

As a result of this decision, does Biden in fact have a chance to try to shape his legacy, given the timing and that there is a definite endpoint ahead? Are there useful historical analogies for what presidents have done in these final months?

Well, this will be an unusual late presidency because of how this new period we’ve just entered started. In 1968, Johnson attempted to combine two very difficult decisions as a way of strengthening his legacy and improving the well-being of the United States. At the same time that he said in March 1968 he would not be a candidate for reelection in November, he announced a serious commitment to negotiating a way out of the Vietnam War. In that way, he made clear that he was devoting his late presidency to an issue of foreign policy. 

Biden might view his remaining months in office as an opportunity to do something similar in the Middle East. But the current crisis in the Middle East is hardly a parallel to the US policy failure in Vietnam. The United States is not a direct combatant in Israel’s war with Hamas. It has to work through an ally, Israel. So there isn’t a direct parallel to Johnson, who said to the world, and particularly to Hanoi and Moscow and Beijing, “Take me seriously” in seeking a diplomatic off-ramp from the war in Vietnam. “I’m no longer playing politics. I’m out of politics.” I don’t see there being a direct parallel for Biden, and that’s OK. 

History provides us with echoes, but rarely does it repeat itself; the circumstances of each case are almost always very different though the dilemmas they raise can seem similar. The people, the political culture—those can be similar, the individuals can be similar. But history isn’t a crystal ball. There are unique elements to Biden’s decision that should be appreciated—and should be a source of some humility in trying to figure out what’s going to happen next.

From a historical perspective, is there something you see as particularly striking about the decision and how it happened?

In trying to follow from afar the discussions going on in Wilmington [Delaware, where the president was at his family home, isolated with COVID and struggling to decide what to do], it seemed that Biden was in part a prisoner to an unfortunate American tradition. This is the idea that only by winning a second term is the president of the United States validated. In the 1840s, James K. Polk made clear that he was seeking only one, very consequential term. Modern presidents, however, have treated their re-election as a referendum on their first terms, when the campaign would be better suited as a test of what they have to offer in a second term.

Presidents should be allowed to rise to greatness in our history simply by serving one term. The moment and the individual can coalesce and that moment may last only four years. George H. W. Bush is a good example. He was supremely qualified and had the right tools to manage the end of the Cold War and the first years of what followed. Yet he didn’t want to be just a one-term president. As a result, when he was defeated in 1992, he left office feeling depressed as if he had somehow failed as president, despite his one term having been so consequential and important. Gerald Ford was another excellent one-term president.

Biden’s one-term presidency is destined to be viewed very positively. How positively will ultimately depend on whether a Democratic successor, whether it’s Kamala Harris or not, is elected in November. But not all of his legacy depends on a Democratic victory in November. He brought us out of Trumpian chaos. He restored America’s role in the world, restored the trust of allies. He pushed adversaries away from goals they were hoping to achieve. Without anything like the majorities of FDR or LBJ, his deft touch with Congress led to a deepening of the social safety net, brought technology to bear in the problem of climate change without sacrificing American jobs, and made a generational commitment to American infrastructure. 

In sum, the president has had a successfully consequential term. Unfortunately, he felt that he alone could prevent Trump from returning to the White House and so sought reelection. But sadly, he didn’t have enough in the tank. It was his own body that defined that his moment had passed. I hope that with time he comes to view his term differently, just as I believe George H. W. Bush did, as one that was extraordinarily successful and a blessing for our country.

Theoretically, the purchase of political advertising has already been banned from 2019 on the Chinese social network. But in the US presidential election in 2020, some campaign teams circumvented the ban by paying influential people. «TikTok does not allow political advertising, including content paid for by influencers», – Eric Hahn said in a statement. Therefore, the company intends to fill this gap by strengthening control and organizing informational sessions with authors and talent search agencies to remind them of the rules for using the social network.

Eric Hahn added that internal teams will monitor for signs that creators are being paid to post political content, and that the company will also rely on media reports and partners to find copyright infringing posts and remove them. All other political videos, as long as they are free, do not spread misinformation and comply with the rules of use of the application, are designed to remain in the user chains.

TikTok is also launching a special area in the app called the «Election Center», where useful information for Internet users about polling stations, candidates and elections in general will be collected. «TikTok collaborates with recognized fact—checking organizations to help assess the validity of content published in more than 30 languages», – adds Eric Hahn. During a telephone interview with the press, the latter among these partners mentioned PolitiFact, Science Feedback and Lead Stories, the Bloomberg news agency reports.

TikTok has published new indicators after similar Meta and Twitter updates. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said on Tuesday that it would implement a procedure based on the same principles as in 2020 and block the posting of new posts by political advertisers a week before the election. At that time, these procedures did not allow either to completely stop the flow of false information that had spread by the time the results were announced, or to prevent the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Last week , Twitter also announced its moderation policy ahead of the midterm elections . The social network plans to once again put labels in front of some misleading tweets, as well as insert reliable information into users’ feeds.

On July 28, two Russian women were denied entry to a tourist destination because of their origin. One of them, a 31-year-old professional journalist, told Agence France-Presse that she was «upset» by the ban. Having arrived in France five months ago, she «exactly fled Russia» because she was «against the war», she admitted.

On Monday, the Department of the Ministry of the Armed Forces justified the ban by an «internal directive» adopted after the invasion of Ukraine on restricting «access to the Ministry’s military premises to Russian citizens». This castle, located southeast of Paris, houses one of the centers of the Historical Protection Service, whose libraries and archives are available to the public under certain conditions.

The Office of the Minister of the Armed Forces Sebastian Lecornu contacted AFP on Tuesday to clarify its response. Thus, the episode with the Vincennes Castle falls under the «indifferent application» of the rule adopted in February for all military facilities, the cabinet explained.

«It goes without saying that [this rule] cannot be applied to strategic buildings in the same way as to places open to the public, such as museums», – he insisted. Therefore, the Vincennes Castle, as well as the Aviation and Cosmonautics Museum or the Invalids’ Home can always receive tourists and immigrants from Russia. «The Minister of the Armed Forces asked (…) that we explain this directive to the agents of these places in order to avoid any incidents», – added his office, which was not aware of any other similar case.

When asked about this episode, as well as Finland’s calls to stop issuing new tourist visas for Russian citizens, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called on these countries to «come to their senses». «These statements come from countries that we have designated as unfriendly (…) Many of these countries are guided by their hostility to unconsciousness», – Peskov told the press. «I think, over time, common sense will prevail again, and those who make these statements will come to their senses», – he added.

On the other hand, access to «strategic buildings» has been severely restricted for Russians since the conflict began in February. In early August, France crossed the threshold of 100 thousand Ukrainian refugees placed on its territory. According to INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Research), 73,500 immigrants from Russia lived in France in 2021.

The announcement was made two days after the military operation: on Monday, August 1, US President Joe Biden announced that he had carried out a deadly airstrike on the leader of the terrorist group «Al-Qaeda», Ayman al-Zawahiri. Osama bin Laden’s former right-hand man was killed by the US army while he was hiding in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Ayman Al-Zawhiri was wanted because of his terrorist activities. He was a close associate of Osama bin Laden, especially when it came to the preparation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York.

In 2011, when Osama bin Laden was killed by a US Army commando, the Egyptian Al-Zawahiri took over the reins of the «Al-Qaeda» terrorist group. Until recently, according to Joe Biden, he continued to call for violent actions in the United States.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri is a figure of radical and jihadist Islam, who experienced the greatest longevity until his death, which was announced on Monday, August 1 (Tuesday, August 2 in France) by American President Joe Biden. His life alone covers all the changes in modern jihadism, from its rise in Egypt in the 1970s to the triumph of the Taliban, who returned to power in Kabul from August 2021.

The leader of «Al-Qaeda», who was killed on July 31 at the age of 71 as a result of an American drone strike on a house where he was under the protection of his Afghan masters, lived in Kabul.

The Chinese Air Force has prepared the first batch of young J-10 fighter pilots, 23-year-old cadets who will join operational squadrons, Chinese state media reported on Saturday, July 23.

Shijiazhuang Aviation Academy was supposed to receive its first training J-10s in 2020. Thanks to this, the cadets, whose number is not reported, will receive combat readiness in three years, compared to six earlier when training on various devices. «The share of tactical training has been increased, such as combat operations with several aircraft and live firing», – the website of the Central Military Council (CMC) of the Communist Party of China says.

This statement was made against the background of the fact that tensions around Taiwan are as high as ever. In the air, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) faces two tasks. He needs to recruit enough competent staff to support his brilliant modernization — he will have about 1,300 fighters, but most of them are outdated. She is also summoned by the party to better prepare for the fight.

It was only in the late 1990s that the Air Force recovered from the dark years of Maoism, when almost all technical schools were closed. Today, Beijing is tempering its pilots in real situations, sending huge squadrons to penetrate the identification and defense zone of Taiwan — 969 invasions in 2021, already 600 in 2022.

«Testing new training methods is an important step in strengthening the armed forces [taking into account] the acceleration of the emergence of a new generation of combat capabilities», – thus boasts the CMC. It was with this in mind that in September 2021, Chang Dingqiu, a 54-year-old general, a fighter pilot, was put at the head of the Air Force.

Manufactured in Chengdu (central-western China), the J-10 multipurpose aircraft, developed using Russian (Sukhoi) and Israeli (Lavi) technologies, entered service in the basic version in 2004. Since then, the Chinese fourth-generation fighter – Bomber continued to appear in new versions, until in 2021, a national, and not a Russian engine, was first noticed on the J-10C. It is said that Beijing sold twenty-five copies to Pakistan to replace the J-17 produced jointly, and two were delivered.

The aircraft will be the first fighter that will stand comparison with the American F-16 or Russian MiG-29, even if its real characteristics have yet to be proven. The PLA announced that it wants to make it the basis of its forces, having about 250 combat copies.

The Pentagon, which has excellent aviation facilities, takes this aspect of China’s military growth very seriously. Because with its J-10C, tanker planes, electronic warfare planes, J-15 aircraft on aircraft carriers and J-20 stealth bombers, the PLA can now conduct long-range operations in the Pacific Ocean.

His chances of success in the Senate seem more limited, since the ten elected Republicans will have to vote with the Democrats. Only Senator Susan Collins has said at the moment that she is ready to do this. Thus, its inclusion on the agenda seems to be aimed at forcing Republicans to take a position on this issue that divides their electorate.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support same-sex marriage (71%), including in the ranks of Republicans. But the religious right remains mostly against him. Whatever their position on the Respect for Marriage Act, Republicans risk running into disagreements with some of their constituents before the November midterm vote.

Specifically, the law repeals previous legislation that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and prohibits civil registry offices, regardless of the state in which they work, from discriminating against married couples «on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity or origin». Thus, it applies to persons of the same sex, whose unions have been guaranteed by the US Supreme Court since 2015, as well as to interracial couples, whom the High Court has protected since 1967.

But the High Court has just taken a historic turn on the issue of abortion rights, overturning the June 24 decision in Roe v. Wade, which since 1973 has guaranteed the right of American women to have an abortion from a position of «respect for privacy».

In the arguments accompanying this decision, conservative Judge Clarence Thomas considered that the right to same-sex marriage and the right to contraceptives, also based on respect for privacy, should, in turn, be reviewed.

Since then, progressive elected members of Congress have multiplied bills. «We cannot sit idly by while the hard won achievements of the equality movement are systematically destroyed», – said Democrat-elect Jerry Nadler. Thus, two documents on the protection of access to abortion were adopted in the Chamber last week, and another document on the right to contraception should be voted on this week. It is likely that they will all stumble in the Senate.

After the trip of French President Emmanuel Macron to Saudi Arabia in December 2021, and then the trip of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in March, the arrival of US President Joe Biden on Friday, July 15, in Jeddah completes the triumphant return to the international arena of the 36-year-old son of King Salman.

The shift is all the more striking because of all the Western heads of state, Mr. Biden reacted most sharply to the young prince, the «encore» monarch of Arabia, who undertook to lead the kingdom out of stagnation. The leader of the Democrats promised to treat this state as an «outcast» during the presidential campaign, and soon after his election declassified a report of the special services that incriminated «MBS» in the particularly heinous murder of Mr. Khashoggi.

The journalist was strangled in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on October 4, 2018 by a group of thugs from Riyadh, who then dismembered his body with a saw. After the publication of the report, Joe Biden made it clear that he would not meet with Salman Jr. on the grounds that his interlocutor should be King Salman himself, the titled sovereign. An insult that is especially inappropriate for the head of the White House today.

«The Biden cancellation is a political and personal triumph for Mohammed bin Salman», – said Yasmin Fowk, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment. «This is MBS’s revenge, – says Hussein Ibish, a researcher at the Gulf Arab Institute in Washington. – Biden’s trip proves it after the fact. No matter what he does, he gets away with it in the end!»

The turn of the owner of the White House originates in the war in Ukraine. To counter Russia’s incitement to war, the United States seeks to revive the pro-American Arab camp, just as they revived the old NATO. With the midterm congressional elections scheduled for the fall approaching, Washington urgently needs to score points domestically by lowering gasoline prices, which causes serious concern to the American voter. And the key to changing prices is obviously in Saudi Arabia, the largest crude oil exporting country on the planet, co-leader of OPEC+ with Russia.

At the same time, political experts believe that Biden’s visit to Riyadh is unlikely to bring any bonuses to the United States. Firstly, Salman Jr. probably has not forgotten Biden’s insults to himself, so he will certainly take the opportunity to recoup Joe’s bragging. Secondly, Saudi Arabia today does not have the extra industrial capacity to increase crude oil production and send it to the world market to lower gasoline prices in the United States, as Washington wants. Thus, the visit of the head of the White House to Riyadh is unlikely to be successful in any scenario of negotiations, American political analysts warn.

In order to organize this referendum, Mrs Sturgeon, the leader of the SNP independence Party, must get the consent of the British government, which is categorically against it. Scots were already consulted about this in 2014, and 55% voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

Based on this previous vote, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson argues that such a referendum can only be held «once in a generation». The SNP, however, believe that Brexit changes the rules of the game, and 62% of Scots voted against it. The SNP’s goal is for Scotland to join the European Union as an independent state.

Nicola Sturgeon said she was ready to negotiate with Boris Johnson, but warned that she would not allow «Scottish democracy to be held captive by Boris Johnson or any prime minister».

Before this speech, Boris Johnson reaffirmed his commitment to the unity of the kingdom. «We certainly think that our plan to strengthen the economy works better when the UK is united than when it is not», – the Conservative leader said on British television on Tuesday on the sidelines of the G7 in Germany.

Being present at the Times Center in Manhattan, where the event was held, Muratov was undoubtedly the first who was surprised to see the sale, also organized online by the American company Heritage Auctions, which lasted about twenty minutes after the start.

While the bids have already exceeded $16 million, the buyer, who wished to remain anonymous, put an end to the uncertainty by offering $103.5 million over the phone. This was enough to break the previous record set in 2014 by the American geneticist James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962, who parted with his medal for $ 4.8 million. The amount collected on Monday is intended for UNICEF, according to which 5.2 million Ukrainian children need humanitarian assistance.

Novaya Gazeta, an independent media outlet co-founded by Mr. Muratov in 1993, is known for its investigations of corruption and human rights violations in Russia. In 2021, this work, which claimed the lives of six of his reporters, including Anna Politkovskaya, who was killed in 2006, earned Mr. Muratov the Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with his Filipino colleague Maria Ressa. At the end of March, a few weeks after the start of the Russian offensive in Ukraine and the Kremlin’s tightening against voices that disagree with it, Novaya Gazeta suspended its print and electronic publications in Russia. Since then, part of the editorial staff has gone into exile and created a « Novaya Gazeta. Europe». In May, Mr. Muratov was also honored by Time magazine, which named him one of the 100 most influential people of 2022.

Mr. Muratov says he was inspired by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who gave up his medal in 1940 to help the Finnish war effort after the Soviet invasion. In a video posted on YouTube on Monday, the journalist, who has already announced that he will donate $500,000 accompanying the award, explained that he «has never felt so helpless» as since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. «In the editorial office of Novaya Gazeta (…), we realized that in order to help the victims of this war, we can and must give the most precious and important thing for us, – he emphasizes, urging us to follow him in his approach. – Everyone has something we care about. Heritage auctions will help you sell them (…) to help refugees and children affected by the fighting in Ukraine».

The noose on Julian Assange is tightening. The British government has confirmed its intention to extradite the founder of WikiLeaks to the United States, where he is being prosecuted for the massive leak of confidential documents. «According to the Extradition Act of 2003, the Minister of State must sign an extradition order if there are no grounds for revoking the order», – a ministry spokesman said.

«In this case, the British courts did not consider the extradition of Mr. Assange repressive, unfair or [constituting] a procedural abuse. They also did not conclude that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, and that, while in the United States, he would be treated appropriately, including with regard to his health», – the ministry spokesman said. A 50-year-old Australian can appeal within fourteen days.

Assange is claimed by the American justice system, which wants to try him for distributing more than 700,000 secret documents about American military and diplomatic activities, in particular, in Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2010. He faces one hundred and seventy-five years in prison. He was arrested in 2019 after spending more than seven years as a refugee at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

WikiLeaks immediately responded on Twitter: «The British Home Secretary [Priti Patel] approves the extradition of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to the United States, where he faces a sentence of one hundred and seventy-five years in prison. A black day for press freedom and British democracy. The decision will be appealed».

Ussu (name changed) thanks the heavens that he is still alive, but searches in vain for traces of his relatives who disappeared after the deadly attack that struck his commune on the night of June 11-12. That evening, the town of Seitenga in northeastern Burkina Faso was surrounded by dozens of heavily armed men linked, according to several security sources, to the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (EIGS).

Around 16 or 17 o’clock, when the first shots rang out, Ussu managed to escape and helplessly watch from afar as the jihadist noose tightened.

«They blocked all exits from the city and killed everyone who tried to escape», – says a survivor, now a refugee, along with more than 3,100 other people, in the town of Dori, the capital of the province Du Seine. «Then they opened the doors of the houses one by one and executed all the men they found», – continues the 30-year-old Burkinabian, who is still in shock after this attack, from which he miraculously managed to escape. It was one of the deadliest attacks since the coup, carried out by putschist Lieutenant Colonel Paul-Henri Sandago Damiba on January 24.

«At the moment, the army has found 50 bodies», – government spokesman Lionel Bilgo said at a press conference held on Monday in Telugu, the capital, before warning that this assessment «may be more serious». Several sources in the security services, both in Burkinaba and in other countries contacted by Le Monde, speak of a «massacre» that killed at least 100 people.

Approximately 15,000 residents of Seitenga, a city located in the so-called «three borders» region – between Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali and the epicenter of the jihadist threat in the Sahel – were expecting an offensive from terrorists. «On June 8, they killed three residents and stole our cattle. They told us they would come back to attack us. And so they attacked», – says Ussu. This area is strategic for armed groups: the last major city before Niger, Seitenga, is located on the edge of a road along which a very lucrative traffic of fuel, livestock and motorcycles is organized.

Ms. Gray, a public servant with a good reputation, was able to reveal only excerpts from her work at the time, but the conclusions were already instructive. She listed 16 problematic «meetings» between May 2020 and April 2021 and noted serious leadership failures in Downing Street.

The police investigation was completed in mid-May. As a result, 126 fines were imposed for violating sanitary rules, including one on the Prime Minister and one on the Chancellor of the Treasury Rishi Sunak. Therefore, nothing prevented a high-ranking civil servant from completely lifting the veil over the actions of Boris Johnson, his cabinet and his advisers during the pandemic.

Many of the details presented in the forty pages of the document describe officials who largely ignored the draconian sanitary rules that they themselves introduced and imposed on the rest of the country. Despite the strict ban on meetings until the summer of 2020, more than six people have been gathering indoors or outdoors since the fall of the same year.

On May 15, 2020, in full strict quarantine, several people from Downing Street, including Prime Minister Johnson and his then special adviser Dominic Cummings, gathered in the gardens of Downing Street to have a drink. Boris Johnson brought cheese and wine from his private apartment located at 11 Downing Street.

The «garden Party» on May 20, 2020 was planned for almost a whole week, and despite some reservations expressed, in particular, by the then Director of Communications (Lee Kane), an email reminder was sent on the same day on behalf of Martin Reynolds, Mr. Johnson’s personal secretary, 200 recipients.

On June 18, prosecco flowed all day in Downing Street, and Helen McNamara, then director of ethics at the Cabinet Office, even provided a karaoke system. That day, Sue Gray notes, the guests drank too much, one of them became ill, and there was even a scuffle. The last guest left the room at 3 a.m.

The materials presented by Sue Gray caused a real stir in politics, the media and society. However, despite this, Boris Johnson categorically refuses to resign. According to him, he participated in the party for only a short time, visiting it as an absolutely random guest.

The New People’s Environmental and Social Union (Nupes), a coalition created on the initiative of Jean-Luc Melenchon La France insoumise for legislative elections, also promises to re-evaluate the treatment of civil servants and unfreeze the points index. Nevertheless, it was in March that Minister Amelie de Montchalin, who was then in charge of the civil service, protecting herself from any ulterior motives of the voter, promised a general measure for public officials until the summer. A gesture justified, as she explained, by strong and prolonged inflation.

After the re-election of the President of the Republic in April, government spokesman Gabriel Attal confirmed on May 11 that the unfreezing of the index would indeed be part of the bill on «purchasing power». This tool, which serves as the basis for calculating the salaries of civil servants, has not been overestimated since 2010. With one exception: in 2016, President Francois Hollande decided on a 1.2% surcharge.

Throughout Emmanuel Macron’s first term, the constant doctrine was «the supposed rejection of the general index increase practiced during the previous five-year terms, measures that are quite unfair and very expensive». A total increase of 1% would amount to expenses of 2 billion euros. Apparently, today the current authorities still decided on such expenses.

Officially, the decision made public on Friday, May 20, seems to have nothing to do with Finland’s application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), submitted two days earlier in Brussels. However, it is difficult not to see a coincidence in this: from 7 a.m. on Saturday, May 21, Russian gas supplies to Finland stopped, just a week after Russia stopped exporting electricity to its neighbor.

The Russian Gazprom Group motivates its decision by the refusal of its Finnish client Gasum to pay for imports in rubles. Electricity supplier RAO Nordic, a subsidiary of the Russian company Inter RAO, for its part mentioned problems with payment.

This is not a surprise for Helsinki: «We have carefully prepared for this situation and, provided there are no interruptions in the gas transmission network, we will be able to provide all our consumers with gas in the coming months», – Mika Viljanen assured. CEO of Gazum.

While natural gas accounts for only 5% of the energy consumed in Finland, 92% of it comes from Russia. In summer, the needs should be easily covered thanks to the Balticconnector pipeline between Finland and Estonia, connected to the Inchukalns underground storage facility in Latvia. But the winter period will be more difficult, because the pipeline capacity will not be enough to cover all the needs, estimated Olga Vaisanen, a spokeswoman for Gasum.

Hence the importance of the contract signed by the Finnish Gas Network with the American Excelerate Energy on Friday in Helsinki, just when Gazprom announced the closure of the crane. It provides for a ten-year lease of a floating terminal for receiving liquefied natural gas (LNG), which, according to Finance Minister Annika Saarikko, will allow Finland to abandon Russian gas. Helsinki hopes to be able to accommodate a huge ship measuring 291 by 43 meters in one of its ports in the fourth quarter.

If the work is not completed on time, the platform can be placed in Estonia. The Gasgrid operators and the Estonian Elering are indeed negotiating the joint management of the terminal, the rental cost of which is estimated at 460 million euros for ten years. The Exemplar vessel can hold up to 68,000 tons of LNG, which corresponds to approximately 1,050 gigawatt-hours of energy. It will be refueled two or three times a month and should easily cover the combined gas consumption of Finland and Estonia with a large excess, assured Stephen Kobos, head of Excelerate Energy.

The facts relate to September 2020. At the headquarters of the Association of Veterans of the KLA in Pristina, allegedly unknown persons in hoods and with weapons in their hands then submitted documents. The packages contained confidential documents of the investigation of the Prosecutor of the Special Court for Kosovo on crimes committed during the 1999-2000 war between Kosovo-Albanian separatists and Serbian forces of Slobodan Milosevic. A conflict that killed 13,000 people.

Among the documents was also a list of several hundred potential witnesses, as well as their personal data. Husni Gukati and Nisam Haradinai held press conferences and published the contents of the documents, urging journalists to publish them. Then two representatives of the association gave about twenty interviews to the media and widely distributed articles on social networks. Potential witnesses whose names are disclosed are treated as «spies», «traitors» and «collaborators».

During the trial, which began in October 2021, the two men pleaded not guilty, saying they were whistleblowers and acted in the public interest. But the judges rejected this argument. «This decision clearly portrays these actions for what they are: criminal and unpatriotic», – said Presiding Judge Charles Smith. Like many veterans of the KLA, the convicts are challenging the creation of a Special Court for Kosovo, established by the European Union in 2015, and then approved, albeit reluctantly, by the Kosovo Parliament.

Reading out the verdict, the presiding Judge said that it reflected the very reason for the creation of this tribunal: because of the failure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Almost all the trials conducted at the ICTY in the 2000s against the leaders of the Kosovo separatist army ended in dismissal after the murder of some witnesses, either because they were intimidated and refused to testify or refused to speak. «Their protection from intimidation and abuse is the very foundation of any criminal justice system, – Judge Charles Smith said. – Without witnesses, there can be no justice either for the victims or for society as a whole».

The security forces explained that 61-year-old Said Madani Gahfarohi, a professor of sociology at Allame Tabatabai University of Tehran, is suspected of maintaining ties with foreign countries and committing acts that threaten the security of the country. It is noteworthy that Said Madani Gahfarohi, who has published several books on Iran’s social evils, including prostitution, violence against women, child abuse, poverty and drug addiction, has already been arrested several times and in 2012 was sentenced to six years in prison.

Earlier it became known that almost four years after America’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), adopted by Donald Trump in May 2018, a new compromise between Tehran, Washington, the Europeans, China and Russia is almost ready. But at the moment, two external obstacles are preventing its signing.

On the one hand, the deal is hampered by Iran’s demand to exclude the Revolutionary Guard from the American list of sponsors of terrorism. On the other hand, the treaty hinders Russia’s demand to exempt its civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran from sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine, hinders, political analysts say.

«This will raise the threshold for the outbreak of military conflicts and, thus, will have a deterrent effect», – concludes the text prepared by the government and parties in parliament. Faced with the opposition of Moscow, which threatens the risks of consequences in the event of rapprochement with NATO, Swedish Foreign Minister Anne Linde said that «we will not be subjected to a conventional military attack in response».

For Russia, this statement, which was certainly expected, was a new setback after the President and Prime Minister of Finland, with which it shares a 1,300-kilometer border, said on Thursday that they were in favor of joining the EU or NATO without delay. The trial is due to end on Sunday. «Membership in NATO would make Finland safer», – they explained.

The Kremlin representative again threatened, hinting at the adoption of military-technical measures, that Moscow would not leave the steps of Stockholm and Helsinki unanswered. On Friday, the Kremlin announced the suspension of electricity supplies to Finland. The Secretary General of the organization, Jens Stoltenberg, welcomed the will of the Finnish leaders, while Paris and Berlin supported Helsinki.

This is a staggering figure that drives people crazy, experts say. According to the Swiss Bankers Association, the amount of savings of Russian oligarchs hidden in Switzerland ranges from 150 to 200 billion Swiss Francs (143 to 190 billion euros), deposits and assets are mixed.

«If the Swiss bankers admit it, we can easily double the amount of sanctions and seizures», – says Anglo-American banker Bill Browder, who for ten years followed the financial frauds of the Kremlin and Putin’s henchmen after being robbed in Russia. In addition, his Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky died in prison in Moscow.

This man spoke last week before a Committee of the US Congress. According to him, it is urgent to clarify the role of Switzerland, «known for a long time as a place where war criminals and kleptocrats hide their prey, and which is the main ally of the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and his henchmen».

The exchange of views quickly turned into a direct accusation of Bern for allegedly ignoring sanctions against Russia. For now, only 7.5 billion Swiss Francs (7.15 billion euros) are frozen. «There is really something wrong in Switzerland», – Bill Browder is indignant.

In Bern, the Federal Council (government) immediately denounced «politically unacceptable accusations» and the current president, Foreign Minister Ignazio cassis, conveyed his «indignation» to the US state Department. According to government spokesman André Simonazzi, Switzerland applies international standards and mechanisms for money laundering and tax evasion.

The Australian Conservative majority, which wanted to make national security one of the main issues in the legislative elections scheduled for May 21, did not assume that this topic would prevail long before the plebiscite and to its detriment.

Since the announcement of the signing of the security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands on April 19, allowing the presence of Chinese police and soldiers in the archipelago, located less than 2,000 km from the northeast coast of the island-continent, it has been the subject of fierce disputes. In particular, there has been controversy over Australia’s inability to prevent this agreement, which represents an unprecedented move by Beijing in close proximity to the continent, seriously worsening its strategic environment.

For the Labor opposition, this is nothing short of the worst «failure in Australia’s foreign policy in the Pacific since the end of World War II», according to Shadow Foreign Minister Penny Wong. The center-left formation criticizes the government for not taking the initiative on this issue and for «giving up» on the Australian preliminary square of the South Pacific.

In the event of an election victory, the Labour Party promises to send more than 350 million euros to this area to support projects in the field of employment, media, defense or even combating climate change – an existential threat to the states of Oceania, almost ignored by conservative leaders.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Denis Moncada, announced the acceleration of the process of the country’s withdrawal from the association. According to his statements, the OAS does not fulfill its obligations to ensure security in the world, as well as to protect democracy and human rights. As a result, the country’s leader Daniel Ortega decided to resist external interference and dictatorship from the members of the Organization of American States.

«Nicaragua ceases to be part of the deceptive mechanisms of the OAS. We do not want to have anything to do with the diabolical tool in the form of this political organization that is involved in destabilizing the world order. In the near future, our representative office in Managua will be closed. After that, the process of our country’s withdrawal from the OAS will be completed», – this was stated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua Denis Moncada.

Earlier, the politician noted the OAS’s opposition to the unity of the regions, as well as the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples. So, in November 2021, the OAS member countries did not recognize the re-election of Daniel Ortega to a fourth term after the imprisonment of the opposition. After that, the Government of Nicaragua reported on the inadmissibility of interference by other countries in the self-determination of the people and the beginning of withdrawal from the OAS.

The ex-president also claims that social networks strengthen the negative aspects of humanity. According to his statements, users have ceased to notice the line between reality and lies. The Democratic leader confirmed the unlikelihood of his victory in the previous presidential election without the participation of Facebook, Twitter and MySpace platforms, but now he believes otherwise. According to the politician, social networks have become an instrument of manipulation and control of society, so the government should take all necessary measures to solve this problem.

«People publish false content that is actively promoted by platforms. Such publications often become the subject of active discussion and are perceived in truth. Unfortunately, such content more often attracts the attention of users, thereby changing public opinion. Social networks contribute to these ideas, so we must control the process of informing to protect the truth and democracy», – said Barack Obama during a speech at the University of California.

Recall that earlier, former President Donald Trump announced the falsification of elections by Democrats in 2020 and called for a recount of votes legally. After his statements, the social media accounts of the then president were blocked. At that time, the administrators of social networks called the publications of the politician false and provocative. Now Barack Obama is calling on the government to review the policy of all information platforms to preserve democracy and the truthfulness of content.

The changed situation in the world forces production to increasingly ignore possible pollution from the use of black fuel in the form of coal and oil. The first decisive step will be taken by the Italian oil and gas company Eni, which plans in 2022 to introduce renewable energy sources for electric vehicles and individuals in the form of separate services. Daniel Leb’s Third Point Activist Foundation has already announced its readiness to break away from the development of environmentally friendly production and return to coal and oil to preserve the industry.

«We are familiar with the desire of most companies to resort to the use of black fuel despite the large pollution in the environment. This is not an easy decision and must be made by world-class manufacturers with financial strength, production experience and influence in the global market», – this was stated by royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden.

Recall that earlier in 2016, fossil energy sources occupied about 40% of the total share of electricity in the world. Recently, an active fight against environmental pollution of production has been carried out to solve the problem of global warming. At the moment, the global situation forces manufacturers to make a difficult decision regarding the use of coal and oil in industry, neglecting the provisions on the preservation of the environment.

Bloomberg’s multi-million dollar, 30-second spot highlights his past work with Obama on issues like gun safety, education and youth jobs, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The ad also includes an audio clip from Obama referring to Bloomberg as someone who can “bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions.”

But the two, “certainly weren’t best buds,” David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Obama, told the paper.

Axelrod said his former boss and Bloomberg had a “working relationship,” but not much beyond that.

The ad, Alexrod said, “does speak to the power of Obama with Democrats. Everyone wants to have an ad like this.”

Tommy Vietor, a former Obama spokesman, tweeted that Bloomberg’s ads are suggestive of an Obama endorsement, when in fact the former president has yet to throw his weight behind a Democratic candidate.

“It’s jarring to see all these Bloomberg ads that suggest Obama has endorsed him, especially considering how … perfunctory his endorsement of Obama was back in 2012,” Vietor wrote.

Another Obama administration official told The Wall Street Journal that the ad exaggerates the personal relationship between Obama and Bloomberg. Bloomberg did not endorse Obama in 2008.

In 2012, he waited until days before the election to endorse Obama in an editorial that was critical of the former president’s first term.

“As president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction,” Bloomberg wrote.

“And, rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it.”

After a new campaign ad touted the former mayor as “incredibly sensitive” to the LGBTQ community, a video resurfaced of Bloomberg last year referring to transgender people as “he, she or it” and “some guy in a dress” — the second time he’s been caught making such comments in recent years.

In the clip, recorded in March before announcing his campaign, Bloomberg used the language to warn 2020 Democratic hopefuls against stressing transgender issues, arguing that they wouldn’t play well in middle America.

“If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to the locker room with their daughter, that’s not a winning formula for most people,” he said at a Manhattan forum hosted by the Bermuda Development Agency.

He delivered a similar remark about a “man wearing a dress” while making the same point at Oxford University in 2016.

Despite the flippant language, a spokesperson for the Bloomberg campaign told Buzzfeed that the candidate is ready to stand behind transgender rights.

“Mike understands that the transgender community has been under attack for decades and the advance of rights has not been equal. In April 2002, during his first year as mayor, Mike signed a sweeping transgender civil rights bill into law,” the spokesperson told the outlet. “His company provides comprehensive health care coverage for his transgender employees.

The spokesperson added that, “as president, he has a comprehensive plan to secure rights for transgender Americans, including passing the Equality Act, ensuring transgender people have access to affirming health care and working to end the crisis of violence against transgender women.”

“I know who it is,” Trump told reporters shortly before boarding Air Force One, bound from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland to California.

But pressed for the identity of the insider — known around the Beltway by the nom de plume “Anonymous” — Trump demurred.

“I can’t tell you that,” he said. “But I know who it is.

“I know all about ‘Anonymous,’” the president continued. “I know a lot about the [White House] leakers too.”

Anonymous in 2018 penned an op-ed for the New York Times blasting the president and claiming to be part of a “quiet resistance” working in the White House to undermine Trump.

Trump in turn demanded that the Times name the author — identified in the article only as a “senior official in the Trump administration” — and slammed the mole as “GUTLESS.”

Last year, Anonymous re-surfaced with a warts-and-all book about the administration called “A Warning,” prompting renewed speculation as to their identity.

A former speechwriter for President Clinton speculated that the culprit was Guy Snodgrass, the chief speechwriter for former Defense Secretary James Mattis, but Snodgrass flatly denied the claim.

Asked whether the person he believes to be Anonymous still works in the White House, Trump again declined to elaborate, saying only, “We know a lot.”

With Post Wires

The purported order was detailed by Michael Duffey, the associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget, to Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email that was viewed by national security news site Just Security.

On that date, Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the congressionally approved $391 million aid package, which was at the time in limbo following a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In what Democrats have alleged to be a quid pro quo, Trump requested that Zelensky investigate the Bidens over Hunter Biden’s lucrative gig at a Ukrainian energy company during his dad’s tenure as vice president, as the aid hung in the balance, leading to the president’s impeachment in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

Leading Republican lawmakers contend, however, that the president has the authority to withhold such foreign aid when there is suspicion of corruption in the receiving country, as there had been over notoriously corrupt Ukraine. Among them is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who made the case for such a defense during a November appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

That argument is expected to be part of the defense presented by the GOP in an eventual impeachment trial in the Senate.

Hours after the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, Duffey wrote to top defense officials: “Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional [Department of Defense] obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process,” according to Just Security.

“I understand that DOD will continue its planning and casework during this period and that this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction,” Duffey continued. “Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.”

Then, following Trump’s August huddle with Esper and Pompeo, Duffey passed word to McCusker: “Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold,” in another unredacted email viewed by Just Security.

The cash flow was eventually restored to Ukraine in September without a probe being launched into the Bidens.

In December, a court ordered the government to release almost 300 pages of emails to the Center for Public Integrity in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit. The document dump included Duffey’s emails, but they were heavily redacted.

In its report, Just Security —  an outlet based at NYU’s School of Law focusing on legal and national security issues — said it had viewed unredacted copies of those emails, which begin in June and end in early October. Just Security does not clarify how it came to see them.